Hello Bob,
-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Schneider [mailto:rjschn39@bellsouth.net]
Sent: Monday, March 25, 2002 6:19 PM
To: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: BIBLE: Marcus Borg
Adrian responds:
"If I were Borg, I would ask myself why even bother to preach the gospel
message that has no grounding in history, and may just very well be entirely
the invention of humans. But I'm not, and apparently, Borg has found some
OTHER reason for the faith he holds."
Adrian,
I'm puzzled by your rejoinder. When you say "gospel message" what are
you assuming to be the "gospel message"? Are you referring to the gospel of
Jesus or the gospel about Jesus? Or do you not make a distinction; and do
you think Borg does?
[AT] IMO, the gospel of Jesus is the gospel about Jesus as the Christ. Jesus
preached the coming of the Kingdom of Heaven, which was to be established by
the New Adam, the Messiah - Himself! I don't see a distinction, unless you
are referring to the popular distinction between knowing Jesus personally &
knowing about Jesus. Borg, as far as I understand, makes a distinction
between the historical Jesus, and the Resurrection Christ, and seems to
suggest that there is a disconnect between the two. That is what I reject.
I'm also astonished that you apparently think that Borg is arguing that
what the gospels say about Jesus and his message has no grounding in
history. It seems to me that he has constructed a portrait of Jesus'
ministry and message that he has derived from a historical analysis of the
gospels, much as many other historians have done.
[AT] What I meant was that according to Borg, the resurrection Christ was
not necessarily the same historical person of Jesus who walked the earth.
There is a disconnect, and that is why there is no grounding. Thus for him,
Christianity was about a mystical encounter between Christian and a
spiritual ideal. The facts of history about Jesus of Nazareth is unimportant
with regard to this faith. I see Borg doing history as a naturalist does.
And, why do you think that the faith Borg holds "in Jesus" and his message
(as distinguished from a faith "about Jesus") is not grounded in the
gospels?
[AT] I didn't write that. I wrote that there is no grounding in history, not
in the gospels.
Perhaps, an important element in any discussion here would be your own take
of the canonical gospels: do you understand them to be straightforward
historical reporting? or are they "kerygmata" (proclamations) that are at
the heart theological interpretations of the historical Jesus in the light
of the resurrection faith, the position held generally in NT scholarship?
[AT] The gospels are proclamations that are grounded in actual historical
events.
Given that we are in Holy Week, let me add another wrinkle. As we were
coming to the end of a careful reading and discussion of the Passion
Narrative in Mark, our Bible Study leader Eddie Broadhead, a moderate
Southern Baptist minister and NT scholar, said, "This is good preaching."
Would you agree with that assessment of the Passion Narrative?
[AT] I don't understanding the point of your question, Bob. What is the
context in which this comment was made?
Finally, my former colleague at Berea College, Jim Holloway, a Barthian
and NT professor (once Southern Baptist, now Antiochene Orthodox), use to
tell his students, "The resurrection is not a fact." How would you take
that?
[AT] I think he is wrong, unless he uses the word "fact" to indicate
something that can be proven conclusively. I think that there is enough
historical evidence to strongly suggest that Jesus did in fact appear after
his death, and the only reasonable theory to explain it is resurrection.
Blessings,
Adrian.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Mar 26 2002 - 11:56:40 EST